INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SUNIL MITTAL HUF , SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.520/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Sunil Mittal Huf, Ward – 1(3)(1), 101, Mahadev Park, Kailash Nagar, Surat Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamhs7185Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

purchase.” 11. The assessee has also submitted before ld CIT(A) that the entire amount should not be treated as bogus and reasonable gross profit at the rate of 5% shall be added to the total income of assessee in wake of various judicial precedence pronounced by ITAT. However, it was observed by ld CIT(A) that the assessee

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown to M/s. Nirav

SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown to M/s. Nirav

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT vs. HITESH B PONKIA HUF, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on\naccount of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny\nstock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price\nmovement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the\ncompany?\n(ii) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT vs. ROYAL DEVELOPERS, NR. IP MISSION SCHOOL, MUGLISA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

69A of the Act observing that substantial amount was declared under IDS even though the declaration was never related to this unexplained investment totaling 1,07,38,774/-. 3) In addition to the ground no. 1 & 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

INCOME TAX OFFICER 331, MAJURA GATE SURAT vs. SHARDABEN GORDHANBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus\nclaim of LTCG. The assessee had submitted all the evidential evidences to prove\nthe genuineness of the transactions pertaining to the purchase and sales of\nshares, which were made through online digital platform through recognized\nstock exchange and recognized broker. The assessee also paid STT and receipt of\nsuch sale and purchases were through banking channel. Accordingly, he held

CHANDULAL A.SHAH(HUF),SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, Ind for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A Nos.83 & 84/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2004-05 1.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah (Huf), V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aaahc 8116 R] 2.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah, V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Adaps 5844 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

69A of the Act. 26. The AO noted that the balance sheet of the assessee had shown investment in factory shed of Rs. 3,85,741 and flat purchase amount of Rs. 95,251 totaling to Rs. 4,80,992 not shown in the balance sheet for the period under consideration, hence, same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section

ARVIND G. VALVI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),SURAT, SURAT vs. SWEETY GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.975/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Sweety Gems Pvt. Ltd., Ward -2(1)(3), 101, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujjar Surat Falia, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs4270N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.29/Srt/2024 (Arising In Ita No.975/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: (2014-15) Sweety Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, 101, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujjar Ward -2(1)(3), Falia, Haripura, Surat - 395003 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs4270N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69A of the Act as the assessee neither in the assessment proceedings nor in the appeal proceedings produced any cogent evidences to prove that the amount credited in the bank account pertains to its business receipts. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that during

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

69A of the Act and Assessing Officer Jignesh Rajkuamr Mehta stated that the total income assessed should be taxed u/s 115 BBE of the Act @ 60%. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT vs. VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus. We note that assessment has been made u/s 153C of the Act, as the search was conducted on 04.09.2015, in the case M/s Param Properties and during the course of search, some documents belonging to the assessee were found pertaining to few assessment years. However, for the assessment year under consideration, there is no mention of any incriminating document

VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus. We note that assessment has been made u/s 153C of the Act, as the search was conducted on 04.09.2015, in the case M/s Param Properties and during the course of search, some documents belonging to the assessee were found pertaining to few assessment years. However, for the assessment year under consideration, there is no mention of any incriminating document